a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman and Ranking 

Minority Member, Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, U.S. Senate

September 2005 ELECTRONIC 

RULEMAKING

Progress Made in 

Developing 

Centralized 

E-Rulemaking System

GAO-05-777
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-777.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Orice Williams 

(202) 512-5837 or williamso@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-777, a report to the 

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, 

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 

September 2005

ELECTRONIC RULEMAKING 

Progress Made in Developing Centralized 

E-Rulemaking System 

E-Rulemaking officials and the e-Rulemaking Initiative Executive Committee 

considered three alternative designs and chose to implement a centralized eRulemaking system based on cost savings, risks, and security. Officials 

relied on an analysis of the three alternatives using two cost and risk 

assessment models and a comparison of the alternatives to industry best 

practices. Prior to completing this analysis, officials estimated the 

centralized approach would save about $94 million over 3 years. They said 

when they developed this estimate, there was a lack of published 

information about costs related to paper or electronic rulemaking systems. 

They used their professional judgment and information about costs for 

developing and operating EPA’s paper and electronic systems, among other 

things, to develop the estimate. 

E-Rulemaking officials extensively collaborated with rulemaking agencies 

and most officials at the agencies we contacted thought the collaboration 

was effective. E-Rulemaking officials created a governance structure that 

included an executive committee, advisory board, and individual work 

groups that discussed how to develop the e-Rulemaking system. We 

contacted 14 of the 27 agencies serving on the advisory board and most felt 

their suggestions affected the system development process. Agency officials 

offered several examples to support their views, such as how their 

recommendations for changes to the system’s design were incorporated. 

While managing the development of the centralized system, e-Rulemaking 

officials followed all but a few of the key practices for successfully managing 

an initiative. For example, officials did not have written agreements with 

participating agencies that included system performance measures. The first 

agencies began migrating to the centralized system in May 2005 with the 

public scheduled to have access in September 2005. Eventually, all 

rulemaking agencies will migrate to the centralized system; however, the 

schedule is tentative due in part to funding issues. As agencies migrate, eRulemaking officials are planning changes to the system including adding 

capabilities that exist in electronic systems operated by some agencies. 

Centralized e-Rulemaking Process 

The E-Government Act of 2002 

requires regulatory agencies, to the 

extent practicable, to ensure there 

is a Web site the public can use to 

comment on the numerous 

proposed regulations that affect 

them. To accomplish this, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

named the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) as the 

managing partner for developing a 

governmentwide e-Rulemaking 

system that the public can use for 

these purposes. Issues GAO was 

asked to address include: 

• EPA’s basis for selecting a 

centralized system, 

• how EPA collaborated 

with other agencies and 

agency views of that 

collaboration, and 

• whether EPA used key 

management practices 

when developing the 

system. 

 What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that, to build on 

the success of this initiative, the 

Administrator of EPA, as managing 

partner of the initiative, take steps 

to ensure there are written 

agreements between EPA and 

participating agencies that include

performance measures that 

address issues such as system 

performance, maintenance, and 

cost savings. These measures are 

necessary to provide criteria for 

evaluating the effectiveness of the 

initiative. E-Rulemaking Initiative 

officials said they agree with GAO’s 

recommendation and they plan to 

implement it.
Page i GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

Officials Considered Three E-Rulemaking Designs and Chose a 

Single, Centralized Design Based on Cost, Deployment Risks, and 

Security 8

Agencies Generally Expressed Satisfaction with E-Rulemaking 

Officials’ Efforts to Solicit Their Input 13

Work Conducted Mostly Consistent with Key Practices but Written 

Agreements Did Not Include Performance Measures 15

Conclusions 21

Recommendation 21

Agency Comments 22

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 23

Appendix II: List of GAO Reports Related to E-Rulemaking 26

Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 28

Table Table 1: Key Practices E-Rulemaking Officials Followed or Did Not 

Follow When Managing the Development of the 

Centralized E-Rulemaking System 16

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

September 9, 2005 Letr

The Honorable Susan M. Collins

Chairman

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Each year, federal agencies publish thousands of regulations that affect 

many aspects of citizens’ lives. The regulatory process allows the public to 

play a role in the promulgation of rules, primarily by requiring agencies to 

publish proposed rules for public comment in accordance with the 

Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, as amended. However, in order to 

be effectively involved, the public needs to know whether a proposed rule 

is open for comment. Modern information technology holds the potential 

to make it easier than ever before to inform the public whether proposed 

rules are open for comment. Technology can also improve the federal 

government’s ability to analyze and respond to those comments. 

Since 2001, several legislative and executive branch initiatives have 

encouraged public participation in rulemaking. Notably, the E-Government 

Act of 20021

 included provisions designed to encourage electronic 

rulemaking and the administration identified electronic rulemaking as one 

of many electronic government initiatives. The first module of the 

e-Rulemaking initiative resulted in a governmentwide Web site at

www.regulations.gov, which enables the public to find and submit 

comments on federal rules that are open for comment and published in the 

Federal Register.

2

 The goal of the second module of the e-Rulemaking 

initiative is to establish a governmentwide electronic docket management 

system into which all relevant regulatory supporting materials and public 

comments will be placed. 

1

Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899 (Dec. 17, 2002).

2

GAO, Electronic Rulemaking: Efforts to Facilitate Public Participation Can Be 

Improved, GAO-03-901 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2003).
Page 2 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

While the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) oversees the eRulemaking initiative, it named the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) managing partner for the initiative.3

 As managing partner, EPA 

heads the Program Management Office (PMO), which is staffed by officials 

from several rulemaking agencies participating in this initiative. The PMO 

staff manages the day-to-day activities of the e-Rulemaking initiative while 

the e-Rulemaking Initiative Executive Committee oversees the initiative’s 

strategy, resources, and timetable.4 Hereafter, we refer to PMO officials as 

e-Rulemaking officials.

In response to your request that we continue to monitor the status of the 

second module of the e-Rulemaking initiative, this report focuses on:

• the approach EPA used to identify alternative designs for the 

e-Rulemaking system, and how the decision to proceed with a single, 

centralized e-Rulemaking system rather than another alternative design 

was made;

• how EPA collaborated with other rulemaking agencies to obtain input 

about the e-Rulemaking system and those agencies’ views regarding the 

collaboration; and

• whether key practices for successfully managing a project have been 

utilized by EPA and EPA’s future plans for developing and implementing 

the centralized e-Rulemaking system.

To address our objectives, we reviewed relevant federal legislation; capital 

asset and business cases developed for the e-Rulemaking initiative; 

contractor assessments regarding the capabilities of existing electronic 

rulemaking systems and the three alternative designs considered for the 

e-Rulemaking system; and documents related to the roles and 

responsibilities of OMB, e-Rulemaking officials, the Executive Committee, 

and federal rulemaking agencies for the design and implementation of the 

e-Rulemaking initiative. We also interviewed OMB, e-Rulemaking officials, 

and officials from several rulemaking agencies involved in the 

3

OMB originally named the Department of Transportation as managing partner, but 

transferred managing partner responsibilities to EPA in late 2002. Details about the transfer 

are provided in the background section of this report.

4

Details about the e-Rulemaking Initiative Executive Committee are provided in this report 

in the section discussing collaboration.
Page 3 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

e-Rulemaking initiative. To identify key practices for successfully 

managing a project we reviewed previous GAO work related to the 

e-government initiatives, which was based in part upon reviews of 

government, private sector, and academic research. We compared 

information provided by e-Rulemaking officials to these key practices to 

determine what practices they appeared to have engaged in as part of 

managing the e-Rulemaking initiative. Our analysis was limited to a 

determination concerning the presence of the practice. We did not assess 

how well or extensively the practice was followed. We performed our 

work from December 2003 through June 2005 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Our scope and methodology are 

described in more detail in appendix I.

Results in Brief E-Rulemaking officials and the e-Rulemaking Initiative Executive 

Committee considered three alternative designs for its electronic docket 

management system and ultimately chose to develop and implement a 

single, centralized e-Rulemaking system based on potential cost savings, 

deployment risks, and security. The other two alternative designs 

considered were a tiered design and a distributed design.5

 In making the 

decision, officials relied on an analysis of the three alternatives prepared by 

a contractor using two cost and risk assessment models and a comparison 

of the three alternatives to industry best practices. This analysis showed 

that one major advantage of the centralized design is that it uses a minimal 

number of governmentwide e-Rulemaking system components in the same 

location to provide consistent access and services for citizens and agency 

staff across all dockets. Prior to the completion of the analysis of the three 

alternatives, e-Rulemaking officials estimated that the centralized 

approach would save about $94 million over 3 years by eliminating 

duplicate systems and annual maintenance fees. Officials said that at the 

time they developed this estimate, there was a lack of published 

information about how much it cost to develop or operate paper or 

electronic rulemaking systems. They primarily used their professional 

judgment, information about costs for developing and operating EPA’s 

5

The centralized design has system components in the same location for delivery of services 

to agencies and the public. The tiered design is a combination of the centralized and 

distributed designs—some components are centrally located and some components are 

located elsewhere. The distributed design has standard centralized components integrated 

with agency-specific electronic docket systems. The three designs are described in more 

detail in another section of this report.
Page 4 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

paper and electronic rulemaking systems, and information provided by 

OMB about the number of rulemaking entities to develop the estimate. 

E-Rulemaking officials extensively collaborated with rulemaking agencies, 

and most officials at the agencies we contacted described the collaboration 

as effective. E-Rulemaking officials established a governance structure 

that included an executive committee, an advisory board with 

representatives of 27 agencies, and smaller work groups, all of which met 

to develop recommendations about how the system should be developed 

and implemented. We contacted 14 of the 27 agencies serving on the 

advisory board and most said their suggestions were taken into account in 

the development and implementation of the e-Rulemaking system. Agency 

officials we interviewed offered examples of how their recommendations 

for changes to the system’s design were incorporated. For example, 

changes were made to the system after one agency expressed concerns 

related to interim rules. E-Rulemaking officials also held public forums to 

obtain perspectives from potential users of the e-Rulemaking system 

regarding its design to ensure their needs were also considered. 

While managing the development of the centralized e-Rulemaking system, 

e-Rulemaking officials, for the most part, have followed key practices for 

managing a project; however, there are a few practices they did not 

incorporate into their management of the initiative. Examples of key 

practices they followed include preparing a complete business case; 

developing a strategy for determining the amount of financial assistance 

agencies should provide; establishing criteria for cost, schedule, and 

performance; and preparing plans that address collaboration, obtaining 

user input, and methods for keeping those affected by the initiative 

informed about new developments. On the other hand, officials did not 

document completely how they identified alternative designs for the eRulemaking system and did not have written agreements with participating 

agencies that include system performance measures. The first agencies 

began migrating to the e-Rulemaking system in May 2005 and the public is 

scheduled to be able to access the system in September 2005. Eventually, 

all rulemaking agencies will migrate to the system; however, the migration 

schedule for the remaining agencies is tentative at this point, due in part to
Page 5 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

funding issues.6 As agencies migrate, officials said they plan to make 

changes to the system based on issues identified by the agencies and the 

public. Although officials have indicated that they intend to build 

additional capabilities into the system to address the needs of agencies 

whose existing systems have capabilities not found in the current version 

of the e-Rulemaking system, a couple of agencies expressed concerns 

about whether the capabilities they have in their current electronic systems 

will be included. 

To learn from this initiative and to build on the success of it, we 

recommend the Administrator of EPA, as managing partner of the initiative, 

take steps to ensure that written agreements between EPA and the 

participating agencies include performance measures that address issues 

such as system performance, maintenance, and cost savings. These 

measures are necessary to provide criteria for evaluating the effectiveness 

of the e-Rulemaking initiative as well as for determining if the initiative is 

operating in the most efficient and economical manner. The Administrator 

of EPA was provided a draft of this report for his review and comment. The 

EPA Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer responded that 

e-Rulemaking officials appreciated GAO’s recommendation to ensure the 

effectiveness of the initiative and e-Rulemaking officials said they agree 

with GAO’s recommendation and plan to implement it. 

Background For many years, federal agencies have been encouraged to use information 

technology to improve their communications with the public and to 

increase participation in the rulemaking process. One of the 

recommendations of the National Performance Review in September 1993 

was to “[u]se information technology and other techniques to increase 

opportunities for early, frequent, and interactive public participation during 

the rulemaking process ...”7

 The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 states 

that the Director of OMB should promote the use of IT “to improve the

6

For a more in-depth analysis of funding issues related to the e-Rulemaking initiative, see 

GAO, Electronic Government: Funding of the Office of Management and Budget’s 

Initiatives, GAO-05-420 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2005).

7

From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less, 

Report of the National Performance Review, September 7, 1993.
Page 6 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal programs...”8 

Similarly, a December 17, 1999, presidential memorandum on “Electronic 

Government” noted that “as public awareness and Internet usage increase, 

the demand for online Government interaction and simplified, standardized 

ways to access Government information and services becomes increasingly 

important.”9

Between June 2000 and February 2001, as information technology began to 

play an increasingly important role in agencies’ regulatory management 

and the facilitation of public participation in federal rulemaking, we 

reported on a number of associated opportunities and challenges.10 We 

pointed out that the use of information technology could reduce regulatory 

burden, improve the transparency of regulatory processes, and, ultimately, 

facilitate the accomplishment of regulatory objectives. We reported on 

innovative uses of information technology that representatives of federal or 

state agencies and nongovernmental organizations believed could be more 

widely used by federal regulatory agencies, and we recommended actions 

that could facilitate innovation, avoid duplication of effort, and potentially 

result in a broader and more consistent approach across federal agencies.

The President, through the President’s Management Agenda, has advanced 

greater use of information technology across a range of government 

functions, including rulemaking. In July 2001, the President identified the 

expansion of e-government as one of the five priorities of his management 

agenda. To support this, OMB has developed an implementation strategy 

and identified 25 e-government initiatives, one of which is e-Rulemaking. 

In May 2002, the Director of OMB issued a memorandum to the heads of 

executive departments and agencies advising them of “our intention to 

consolidate redundant IT systems relating to the President’s on-line 

rulemaking initiative.”11 Citing OMB’s authority under the Clinger-Cohen 

8

44 U.S.C. § 3504(h)(5).

9

Presidential Memorandum on Electronic Government (Dec. 17, 1999).

10See, for example, GAO, Federal Rulemaking: Agencies’ Use of Information Technology to 

Facilitate Public Participation, GAO/GGD-00-135R (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2000); 

Electronic Government: Government Paperwork Elimination Act Presents Challenges for 

Agencies, GAO/AIMD-00-282 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2000); and Regulatory 

Management: Communication About Technology-Based Innovations Can Be Improved, 

GAO-01-232 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 2001).

11OMB Memorandum No. M-02-08, Redundant Information Systems Relating to On-Line 

Rulemaking Initiative (Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2002).
Page 7 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

Act of 1996, the Director said OMB had identified “several potentially 

redundant systems across the federal government that relate to the 

rulemaking process,” and indicated that consolidation of those systems 

could save millions of dollars. The administration said e-Rulemaking 

would “democratize an often closed process.” 

In late 2002, the President signed into law the E-Government Act of 2002.12 

The act requires agencies, to the extent practicable, to accept public 

comments on proposed rules “by electronic means” and to ensure that a 

publicly accessible federal Web site contains “electronic dockets” for their 

proposed rules.13 The act also established an Office of Electronic 

Government within OMB, headed by an Administrator appointed by the 

President and required to work with the Administrator of OMB’s Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs in establishing the strategic direction of 

the e-government program and to oversee its implementation.14 

Initially, OMB named the Department of Transportation (DOT) as the lead 

agency, or managing partner, for the e-Rulemaking effort, entrusting DOT 

with the day-to-day management of the project as well as collaboration 

with other e-Rulemaking agencies. In a previous report, we noted that 

“DOT had the most developed electronic docket system of the agencies 

that we contacted, covering every rulemaking action in the department and 

including all public comments received regardless of medium.”15 DOT 

served as managing partner until an independent consultant’s assessment 

concluded in August 2002 that the system operated by EPA was the optimal 

platform to serve as the consolidated electronic docket platform for the 

entire federal government. As a result of this assessment, OMB transferred 

managing partner responsibilities from DOT to EPA in late 2002. 

12Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899 (Dec. 17, 2002).

13Id. at § 206(d). As used in this report, a rulemaking “docket” is the official repository for 

documents or information related to an agency’s rulemaking activities, and may include any 

public comments received and other information used by agency decision makers.

1444 U.S.C. § 3602. For a general discussion of the various e-Government initiatives, 

including e-Rulemaking, see GAO-03-229, Electronic Government: Selection and 

Implementation of the Office of Management and Budget’s 24 Initiatives (Washington, 

D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002).

15For more information on DOT’s electronic docket system, see GAO, Federal Rulemaking: 

Agencies’ Use of Information Technology to Facilitate Public Participation, GAO/GGD-00-

135R (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2000). 
Page 8 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

The e-Rulemaking initiative provides a single portal for businesses and 

citizens to access the federal rulemaking process and comment on 

proposed rules. It is composed of three modules. The first module was 

completed in January 2003 with the launch of the www.regulations.gov

Web site.16 The second module, which is the focus of this report, will move 

beyond rule identification and a comment mechanism by establishing a 

governmentwide electronic docket management system into which all 

relevant regulatory supporting materials and public comments will be 

placed. The third and final module will create an electronic regulatory 

desktop to facilitate the rule development process.17 

Officials Considered 

Three E-Rulemaking 

Designs and Chose a 

Single, Centralized 

Design Based on Cost, 

Deployment Risks, and 

Security

E-Rulemaking officials and the e-Rulemaking Initiative Executive 

Committee considered three alternative designs for the federal eRulemaking system and ultimately chose to develop and implement a 

single, centralized design. This decision was based upon studies that 

examined the costs, deployment risks, and security aspects of the three 

designs. Throughout the management of the e-Rulemaking initiative, eRulemaking officials have estimated that the centralized design would save 

money; the latest estimate is that it would save approximately $94 million 

over 3 years. Officials said they used their best professional judgment and 

information about the costs to develop and operate paper and electronic 

rulemaking systems.

Centralized, Tiered, and 

Distributed Designs 

Considered 

E-Rulemaking officials and the e-Rulemaking Initiative Executive 

Committee considered three designs for the system architecture of the 

governmentwide e-Rulemaking system. These were a centralized, tiered, 

or a distributed design. The key characteristics of the governmentwide eRulemaking system architecture would:

• enable agencies to manage content and workflow processes using 

variable access controls and role definitions; 

• provide a robust and scaleable Web-based solution that supports the 

capture, conversion, and dissemination of high volumes of information; 

16For a more in-depth discussion of the www.regulations.gov Web site (the first module of 

the e-Rulemaking initiative), see GAO-03-901.

17For a list of GAO reports related to e-Rulemaking, see app. II.
Page 9 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

• provide the public and stakeholders with the ability to perform 

electronic docket searching, viewing, and commenting across multiple 

agencies; and

• minimize the total cost of system ownership and management while 

delivering responsive service to agencies/subagencies, businesses, and 

citizens.

Anyone with the ability to connect to the Internet with a standard industry 

browser would be able to access the e-Rulemaking system. 

Centralized design. The centralized design uses a minimal number of 

governmentwide e-Rulemaking system components in the same location to 

provide consistent access and services for citizens and agency staff across 

all dockets. Under this design, the features and functions of the 

governmentwide e-Rulemaking system are provided by component-based 

application architecture and all standard components are centrally located. 

These application components would reside on servers in a single location 

for delivery of services to the public and the agencies. Unlike the tiered 

and distributed designs, which are discussed in the next sections, the 

centralized design will not support existing agency docket systems nor will 

it distribute components of the governmentwide e-Rulemaking system in 

agency facilities.

Tiered design. The tiered design utilizes a centralized governmentwide eRulemaking system to deliver all agency and citizen services, but is 

different from the centralized design because common hardware and 

software components installed in the governmentwide e-Rulemaking 

system are also installed at different agency sites to enhance system 

performance. For example, components like the database management or 

document management system may be placed on separate servers in the 

same or different locations to process information more efficiently to boost 

system performance, and the responsibility for the data is dispersed across 

multiple entities or agency sites and would be maintained locally at each 

site. Because the tiered design is based on the use of common hardware 

and software components, the governmentwide e-Rulemaking system is 

not linked to any existing agency specific docket system with its unique 

hardware and software. As a result, no customized software interfaces are 

needed.

Distributed design. The distributed design integrates a centralized 

governmentwide e-Rulemaking system with existing agency-specific 
Page 10 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

electronic docket systems while satisfying all governmentwide 

e-Rulemaking system requirements. This design links agencies with 

existing docket systems to the governmentwide e-Rulemaking system using 

customized software (middleware) to allow interconnectivity between 

agencies’ systems and the governmentwide e-Rulemaking system. This 

design provides the public with a means of searching across agency 

dockets and establishes the governmentwide e-Rulemaking system as an 

access point to the public and agencies for searching, reviewing, and 

commenting on dockets that reside on the agencies’ existing docket 

systems. In addition, agencies with docket systems will continue to 

perform their own workflow/business/docket life-cycle processing. 

Officials Used Contractor’s 

Analysis When Preparing 

Business Case 

Recommending Centralized 

Design 

In 2002, DOT, which was the managing partner for the e-Rulemaking 

initiative, contracted with a consulting firm to assess the capabilities of 

seven existing agency e-Rulemaking systems and prepare a business case 

describing alternative designs for the system and the recommended design. 

The firm was to provide advice to DOT about the best technical approach 

for the initiative, along with a full analysis of alternatives that leverage the 

use of existing technology to meet the vision, goals, and objectives of the 

initiative. Based on its assessment, the consulting firm’s August 2002 

report recommended that EPA’s eDocket system would be the optimal 

platform for a governmentwide centralized e-Rulemaking system. The 

business case discussed two other alternative designs as well. DOT 

submitted this business case to OMB in September 2002.

Based on the recommendation to use EPA’s e-Rulemaking system as the 

platform for a centralized system, OMB transferred managing partner 

responsibilities for the e-Rulemaking initiative from DOT to EPA. After 

EPA became the managing partner in late 2002, EPA submitted three 

additional business cases to OMB—in December 2002, September 2003, 

and September 2004—and recommended the centralized design. During 

this time period, e-Rulemaking officials also hired a contractor to refine the 

three alternative designs, summarize the costs and risks for each 

alternative, and recommend one alternative for implementation. ERulemaking officials used the contractor’s January 2004 report 

recommending the centralized alternative when preparing the last of the 

three business cases that was submitted to OMB.
Page 11 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

Three Assessments Favored 

Centralized Design

E-Rulemaking officials and the e-Rulemaking Initiative Executive 

Committee based the decision to select the centralized design over the 

tiered and distributed designs on three assessments that generally found 

that the centralized design was most cost effective, had the lowest risk for 

deployment and support instability, was the most secure, and was most 

likely to deliver the breadth and functionality sought by agencies and the 

public. E-Rulemaking officials hired a contractor to conduct two analyses 

based on cost18 and risk models, and the contractor obtained from a 

consulting firm a third assessment that was based on industry best 

practices and experiences in assessing similar architectures. 

The first assessment used a cost-analysis modeling tool used by the private 

sector and government agencies to analyze and estimate the costs 

associated with software application development. Using this model, the 

cost estimates to deliver and operate the three designs were $18.7 million 

for the centralized design, $21.1 million for the tiered design, and $87.2 

million for the distributed design (assuming 10 agencies were integrated 

with the centralized governmentwide e-Rulemaking system). The model 

predicted it would take 1 year to deliver the centralized design and almost 3 

years to deliver the distributed design. Also, according to the model, the 

complexity of the distributed design would present a high risk of instability 

to the overall operation and maintenance of the systems.

The second assessment used a model19 that estimates the total cost of 

implementing and supporting a specific application within a commercial 

enterprise and assesses the expected risk of successful deployment and the 

benefit to the organization of adopting the new capability. Using this 

model, the cost to deliver and operate the three designs was $20.1 million 

for the centralized design, $22.8 million for the tiered design, and $94.9 

million for the distributed design (assuming 10 agencies were integrated 

18The costs evaluated are those that are normally associated with the selection of 

architectural options during the analysis of system solutions at the beginning of their life 

cycles. The evaluation was not intended to be a fully detailed agency-specific cost-benefit 

analysis associated with developing the governmentwide e-Rulemaking system and 

migrating specific agencies to that system.

19This model is an enterprise application cost and risk assessment model that provides a 

framework for analyzing and developing technology portfolios. It uses a business 

collaborative engine that allows larger organizations to measure and improve alignment of 

business objectives with information technology initiatives. The company that developed 

the model based it on 10 years of collaboration with Fortune 500 Chief Information Officers 

to determine viability, business risk, and business value.
Page 12 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

with the centralized governmentwide e-Rulemaking system). The model 

estimated that there was a 50 to 60 percent greater likelihood of 

unsuccessful deployment of the distributed design when compared to the 

other designs. The most significant risk factor accounting for this 

increased likelihood of failure is system complexity, resulting in major 

integration, infrastructure, and change management issues that tend to be 

difficult to resolve.

The third assessment was done by a leading information technology firm 

with the intent of predicting the cost, risk, security, and supportability of 

the three designs based on industry best practices and the firm’s 

experience in assessing similar architectures. The firm recommended the 

centralized design because it provided for a consistent implementation 

across the government and was the lowest cost and least risky design. The 

firm rated the tiered design as “feasible but not recommended” for various 

reasons including the following. First, the firm said it would be difficult to 

maintain consistent data quality in a tiered design because the 

responsibility for data would be spread across multiple entities. Second, 

consistent security and business continuity policies could not be 

implemented because each agency would most likely manage its data 

according to its security policies and business continuity models. Third, 

data retrieval could be complex because data would be maintained locally 

at each agency. The firm did not recommend the distributed design for 

several reasons, including the highly complex implementation and high 

delivery risk and higher cost for maintenance and support due to the large 

number of disparate systems involved in the design. 

Officials Used Professional 

Judgment to Develop 

Estimated Savings

E-Rulemaking officials estimated that the federal government would save 

approximately $94 million over 3 years by deploying the e-Rulemaking 

system—$56 million in savings from eliminating duplication of systems and 

$38 million in savings from annual maintenance fees. Officials said that 

they developed this estimate prior to completing the three assessments 

previously described and that at the time they developed this estimate, 

there was a lack of published information about how much it cost to 

develop or operate paper or electronic rulemaking systems. They primarily 

used their professional judgment, information about costs for developing 

and operating EPA’s paper and electronic rulemaking systems, and 

information provided by OMB about the number of rulemaking entities to 

develop the estimate. The estimate assumes, among other things, that all 

rulemaking entities would either develop an electronic rulemaking system 
Page 13 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

or, if they already had an electronic rulemaking system, they would 

continue to operate those systems.

Agencies Generally 

Expressed Satisfaction 

with E-Rulemaking 

Officials’ Efforts to 

Solicit Their Input 

E-Rulemaking officials extensively collaborated with rulemaking agencies 

and used several methods to solicit the participation of those agencies 

during the e-Rulemaking effort, notably the use of interagency working 

groups. Most officials at these other rulemaking agencies said they had 

adequate opportunity to collaborate on the initiative and described the 

process as effective. They provided us with examples that supported their 

opinions. 

Officials’ Collaborative 

Efforts Included Three 

Levels of Panels with Broad 

Representation 

E-Rulemaking officials have successfully used a variety of collaboration 

tools to encourage participation and arrive at consensus among the 

participating agencies, particularly the use of interagency working groups. 

Two core working groups facilitate discussion and decision making for the 

project: (1) the e-Rulemaking Advisory Board, composed primarily of 

technical and policy staff from the participating agencies; and (2) the eRulemaking Initiative Executive Committee, composed of upper-level 

agency managers such as Chief Information Officers and individuals at the 

Assistant Secretary level, which was added after the project had begun to 

obtain upper management support from participating agencies—especially 

those that already have an electronic system in place. Additionally, 

e-Rulemaking officials have convened specialized working groups to tackle 

unique areas of concern, such as system design, project funding, or legal 

issues. These specialized working groups are open forums designed to 

foster consensus on decisions made on the e-Rulemaking initiative.

Under e-Rulemaking officials’ guidance, specialized working groups are 

charged with developing specific proposals for the project and transmitting 

these proposals to the Advisory Board for discussion. The Advisory Board 

may consider revisions to the proposal before reaching a decision that 

represents a consensus of the participants. This decision is then sent to the 

Executive Committee, which makes a final decision on the proposals and 

recommends a course of action to OMB. Agency officials we spoke with 

noted that representatives of all agencies are free to participate on the 

Executive Committee, the Advisory Board, or any working group.

The three levels of panels are supplemented by a variety of other 

collaborative tools and methods, including: one-on-one meetings with 
Page 14 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

agency officials, surveys, e-mail communication, teleconferencing, and an 

online library of documents related to the initiative. EPA also provided 

public notice of its work in the Federal Register and held public forums on 

the East and West coasts to obtain the views of businesses, citizens, and 

interest groups regarding the design of the e-Rulemaking system.

Officials Praised for Their 

Collaboration, 

Responsiveness to Unique 

Agency Needs, and 

Explanations for 

Suggestions That Were 

Rejected 

The tenor of our discussions with officials of 14 of the 27 agencies serving 

on the Advisory Board was that they were satisfied with the level of 

collaboration. Participating agencies indicated that they had adequate 

opportunity to provide input and described the collaboration of eRulemaking officials as effective. Officials from a few agencies even said 

that in terms of the e-government initiatives, the e-Rulemaking initiative 

was one of the better collaborative efforts in which they have participated. 

Agencies often praised e-Rulemaking officials’ concern for the unique 

needs of their agency. For example, one agency communicated its concern 

that it was not clear how the e-Rulemaking system would accommodate 

interim rules. While most rules are not effective until after the rulemaking 

process is concluded, some interim rules are effective immediately, for 

example, due to emergency conditions or other concerns related to health 

and safety. After receiving this comment, e-Rulemaking officials 

recognized the need to be clear about how interim rules would be 

processed and how comments on such rules would be addressed. The 

system was revised in accordance with the agency’s suggestions.

In another instance, one agency disagreed with the implementation 

schedule it was given for its transition to the e-Rulemaking system. The 

agency’s officials anticipated that the transition date would overlap with a 

critical stage in their annual rulemaking cycle and expressed concern that 

any errors in processing and adopting rules during that time would be 

particularly harmful. E-Rulemaking officials readily agreed to change the 

schedule to account for this timing problem. 

Even when an agency’s suggestion was not incorporated into the system 

design, they acknowledged that e-Rulemaking officials treated their 

concerns fairly, completely, and they understood why the suggestion was 

rejected. Agencies frequently deferred to the needs of the group after 

expressing their individual preferences during the collaborative process. 

The opinions expressed by these officials are consistent with our prior 

work. We noted in a recent report that e-Rulemaking initiative officials 
Page 15 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

have successfully used collaboration strategies to achieve consensus with 

partner agencies on funding contributions to the e-Rulemaking initiative 

based on agency-specific characteristics.20 

Work Conducted 

Mostly Consistent with 

Key Practices but 

Written Agreements 

Did Not Include 

Performance Measures

While managing the development of the centralized e-Rulemaking system, 

e-Rulemaking officials have, for the most part, followed key practices for 

successfully managing a project. However, there are a few practices that 

officials did not incorporate into the management of the e-Rulemaking 

initiative, such as including system performance measures in written 

agreements with agencies. The first agencies began migrating to the 

centralized e-Rulemaking system in May 2005 and the public is scheduled 

to have access to the system in September 2005. While all agencies will 

eventually migrate to the centralized system, the schedule for doing so may 

change, due in part to funding issues. E-Rulemaking officials have also 

created a process for approving changes to the system based on concerns 

or issues identified by agencies or the public. 

Officials Mostly Followed 

Key Practices during System 

Development

E-Rulemaking officials, for the most part, followed key practices for 

successfully managing a project while developing the centralized eRulemaking system; however, there are a few practices that they did not 

follow. Table 1 summarizes the key practices they followed and those that 

they did not follow when developing the centralized e-Rulemaking system. 

This table does not indicate how well they followed each practice, but 

rather, indicates if the steps they took to manage the e-Rulemaking 

initiative reflected the presence of the practice.

20For additional information see GAO: Electronic Government: Initiatives Sponsored by the 

Office of Management and Budget Have Made Mixed Progress, GAO-04-561T (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 24, 2004).
Page 16 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

Table 1: Key Practices E-Rulemaking Officials Followed or Did Not Follow When 

Managing the Development of the Centralized E-Rulemaking System

General management 

areas Key practices

E-Rulemaking initiative 

incorporated key practice

Information included in 

business case

Problem situation or 

condition

Yes

Concept for an improved 

future situation or process

Yes

Assumptions that predict, 

simplify, or clarify future 

conditions 

Yes

Benefits of implementing the 

initiative

Yes

How the initiative is linked to 

strategic objectives 

Yes

Risks and how they will be 

mitigated

Yes

How the initiative is driven by 

customer needs or the plans 

to identify customer needs 

Yes

Strategy for collaboration 

with other entities

Yes

Project funding Strategy for determining 

amount of financial 

assistance to be provided by 

others 

Yes

Agreements regarding 

resource commitments and 

contributions

Yes

Financial managers provided 

information on project status 

and needs on a continuing 

basis

Yes

Written agreements on 

key dimensions

Agreement reached on 

expected outcomes

Yes

Agreement reached on 

system performance 

measures

No

Agreement reached on roles 

and responsibilities

Yes

Agreement reached on 

resource commitments and 

contributions

Yes

Cost, schedule, and 

performance

Cost, schedule, and 

performance plans

Yes
Page 17 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

Monitoring costs, schedules, 

and performance 

Yes

Planning Collaboration plan 

developed and used

Yes

Plan for soliciting user input 

on a continuing basis 

developed and used

Yes

Plan for soliciting rulemaking 

agency input developed and 

used

Yes

Plan to solicit information as 

the system is implemented 

Yes

Plan to solicit feedback 

information from the public 

developed and used

Yes

Planned outreach programs 

to keep system users 

informed of new 

developments developed

Yes

Mechanism for obtaining 

feedback and answering 

questions developed 

Yes

Transparency Project management 

decisions related to 

approach used to identify 

alternative designs 

documented 

No

Project management 

decisions related to selecting 

the centralized system as the 

preferred alternative 

documented

Yes

Project management 

decisions related to changes 

made to the system based 

on discussions with agencies 

documented

Yes

Project management 

decisions related to changes 

made to the system based 

on public input documented

Yes

Project management 

decisions related to changes 

made to the system based 

on system testing 

documented

Yes

(Continued From Previous Page)

General management 

areas Key practices

E-Rulemaking initiative 

incorporated key practice
Page 18 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

Sources: GAO reports, interviews with e-Rulemaking officials, and e-Rulemaking initiative documents.

Note: GAO analysis of e-Rulemaking initiative information.

a

N/A: Since the first agencies began migrating to the centralized e-Rulemaking system in May 2005, eRulemaking officials have not reached any decisions related to changes that should be made based on 

actual use of the system.

E-Rulemaking officials followed all of the key practices except two. They 

did not document completely decisions related to the approach they used 

to identify alternative designs. Also, EPA, as managing partner, does not 

have written agreements that address system performance measures with 

agencies participating in the e-Rulemaking initiative. Although the written 

agreements do not include performance measures, e-Rulemaking officials 

do have performance goals that they are measuring. For example, one goal 

is to have the centralized e-Rulemaking system available to the public and 

agency rule writers and managers 99.99 percent of the time. Officials also 

said they are developing a postimplementation review plan.

EPA, as managing partner, signed written agreements with 15 agencies 

during fiscal years 2003 or 2004 that indicated EPA would establish 

performance measures, but the agreements did not include any details 

about them. These agreements did include expected outcomes, roles and 

responsibilities, and resource commitments. These 15 agencies—which 

committed to providing financial assistance or in-kind resources to the 

initiative—included the 5 agencies, or parts of agencies, that are migrating 

to the centralized e-Rulemaking system during the first migration phase.21 

During fiscal year 2005, EPA plans to sign similar agreements with 20 

additional agencies that include these three items. The additional agencies 

are those to whom OMB has issued budget guidance for 2005 regarding 

providing funding to EPA for the e-Rulemaking initiative. As additional 

Project management 

decisions related to changes 

made to the system based 

on actual use of the system 

by agencies or the public 

documented

N/Aa

21The written agreement with one agency was signed in fiscal year 2004. The agreement did 

not include a financial commitment for fiscal year 2004, but did include a financial 

commitment for fiscal year 2005.

(Continued From Previous Page)

General management 

areas Key practices

E-Rulemaking initiative 

incorporated key practice
Page 19 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

agencies become involved in funding the initiative, e-Rulemaking officials 

said they plan to sign similar agreements with them.

Officials Have Process for 

Approving Changes to the 

System Based on Agency 

and Public Input as More 

Agencies Migrate to It

In May 2005, the agencies included in phase I of the migration schedule—

EPA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service within the Department of Agriculture, a 

portion of the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Archives 

and Records Administration—began migrating to the centralized eRulemaking system. Current plans are for 18 additional departments or 

agencies to begin using the system in fiscal year 2006, resources permitting. 

The remaining rulemaking departments or agencies are scheduled to begin 

using the system at different times during fiscal year 2007 and beyond. 

According to e-Rulemaking officials, the schedule may change depending 

on funding. They originally planned to migrate 10 agencies to the new 

system during phase I, but had to cut back due to funding shortfalls and 

late contributions, specifically in fiscal year 2004.22 

When an agency is scheduled to migrate to the new system, it will go 

through a multistep process tailored to meet its needs. E-Rulemaking 

officials will sign an agreement that outlines the steps the agency will go 

through to migrate to the centralized system. Upon request, prior to 

initiating the implementation process, e-Rulemaking officials will meet 

with a department or agency to brief them on the initiative and 

demonstrate the system. The implementation steps, in chronological 

order, are:

1. implementation kick-off;

2. site survey (i.e., identify and analyze agency-specific technical and 

functional needs);

3. data preparation (i.e., develop agency-specific implementation);

4. agency configuration (i.e., develop technical and functional engineering 

requirements to support agency-unique implementation);

5. training (i.e., develop plans and conduct training);

22 GAO-05-420.
Page 20 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

6. usability testing (i.e., allow agency users to become familiar with the eRulemaking system);

7. data migration (i.e., migrate data to the system);

8. moving to production (i.e., agency goes “live” using the system); and

9. postproduction support.

Five of the nine steps are high-level checkpoints at which the agency and eRulemaking officials agree that conditions are acceptable to move forward. 

These steps are the kick-off meeting, data preparation, training, usability 

testing, and moving to production. 

The centralized e-Rulemaking system will not remain static as additional 

agencies migrate to it, according to e-Rulemaking officials. They said that 

changes to the system will be made when valid concerns or issues are 

identified. Such concerns or issues could be raised by agencies that have 

already migrated to the system, agencies that will be migrating to the 

system, or public users of the system. E-Rulemaking officials are already 

planning changes to the system before phase II of the migration schedule 

begins. These changes are based on issues identified during beta testing by 

the agencies and usability testing by the public. According to e-Rulemaking 

officials, they have created a Change Control Board that will review and 

determine which requests for changes to the system will be granted. This 

board will also prioritize the changes that are to be made and obtain an 

estimate of the cost to implement them from the contractor assisting in the 

design and implementation of the system. 

A couple of agencies said they had concerns about whether the centralized 

system would include all the capabilities of their current electronic 

systems. For example, one agency said that their system tracks hearings as 

well as regulatory dockets. E-Rulemaking officials told these agencies that 

any such capabilities will be incorporated into future versions of the 

centralized e-Rulemaking system, provided adequate funding is provided. 

Moreover, they noted that because each agency signs an agreement with 

the e-Rulemaking Program Office before migrating to the centralized 

system, the agency can assure itself that the system has the capabilities it 

needs before signing the agreement and moving forward with migration. 
Page 21 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

Conclusions The process e-Rulemaking officials and the e-Rulemaking Initiative 

Executive Committee used to decide which of the three designs—

centralized, tiered, or distributed—to develop and implement as well as the 

basis for that decision, was reasonable and adequately supported. Using 

two cost and risk models and comparing the three designs to industry best 

practices was a sound approach to use in order to select which design 

should be implemented. In addition, because there was a lack of published 

information about the costs to develop or operate either a paper or 

electronic rulemaking system, e-Rulemaking officials used their 

professional judgment and own experiences to estimate how much the 

centralized e-Rulemaking system could save the federal government.

E-Rulemaking officials established a governance structure to collaborate 

with other agencies to obtain input on developing and implementing the 

centralized e-Rulemaking system and its collaboration efforts with other 

agencies have been extensive and well-received. Most of the agencies we 

contacted were very satisfied with the collaboration efforts and thought 

that e-Rulemaking officials listened to their ideas and used them when 

developing and implementing the system. Officials from a few agencies we 

interviewed even said that in terms of the e-government initiatives, the eRulemaking initiative was one of the better collaborative efforts in which 

they have participated. 

While managing the development of the centralized e-Rulemaking system, 

e-Rulemaking officials followed most of the key practices for successfully 

managing a project. E-Rulemaking officials could, however, improve their 

management of the e-Rulemaking initiative by including system 

performance measures in written agreements with agencies. Having such 

agreements would provide criteria for determining if the e-Rulemaking 

initiative is operating in the most effective, efficient, and economic manner 

possible. 

Recommendation E-Rulemaking officials established a governance structure that allowed it 

to successfully collaborate with other agencies about how to develop and 

implement the centralized e-Rulemaking system and used most of the key 

practices included in this report for managing an initiative. To learn from 

how it managed this initiative and to build on the success of it, we 

recommend that the Administrator of EPA, as managing partner of this 

initiative, take steps to ensure that the written agreements between EPA 

and the participating agencies include performance measures that address 
Page 22 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

issues such as system performance, maintenance, and cost savings. These 

measures are necessary to provide criteria for evaluating the effectiveness 

of the e-Rulemaking initiative as well as for determining if the initiative is 

operating in the most efficient and economical manner.

Agency Comments The Administrator of EPA was provided a draft of this report for his review 

and comment. The EPA Assistant Administrator and Chief Information 

Officer provided written comments on the draft in an August 17, 2005, 

letter, which is reprinted in appendix III. The Assistant Administrator 

agreed that the report accurately describes the e-Rulemaking Initiative. 

She added that e-Rulemaking officials appreciated GAO’s recommendation 

to ensure the effectiveness of the initiative and they look forward to 

continuing to work with GAO for the continued success of the project. ERulemaking officials said they agree with GAO’s recommendation and they 

plan to implement it. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we will not distribute it until 30 days from the date of 

this letter. At that time we will send copies of this report to the Chair and 

Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Government 

Reform, the Administrator of EPA, and the Director of OMB. We will make 

copies available to others on request. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-5837 or at williamso@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Key contributors to this report were Thomas Beall, Boris 

Kachura, Steven Law, Joseph Santiago, Shellee Soliday, and Grant Turner.

Orice M. Williams

Director

Strategic Issues
Page 23 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

While the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) oversees the eRulemaking initiative, it named the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) managing partner for the initiative. As managing partner, EPA heads 

the Program Management Office (PMO), which is staffed by officials from 

several rulemaking agencies participating in this initiative. The PMO staff 

manages the day-to-day activities of the e-Rulemaking initiative while the eRulemaking Initiative Executive Committee makes the final decisions 

about the initiative’s strategy, resources, and timetable. Hereafter, we refer 

to PMO officials as e-Rulemaking officials.

Our first objective was to describe the approach EPA used to identify 

alternative designs for the e-Rulemaking system and how the decision to 

proceed with a single, centralized system design was made. To address this 

objective, we reviewed the Capital Asset Plan and Business Cases 

submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the 

Department of Transportation (DOT).1

 We also reviewed a contractor’s 

analysis of the capabilities of current e-Rulemaking systems, a contractor’s 

summary of assessments of the three identified alternative designs 

including analyses of operational risks and security vulnerabilities, and 

documentation related to the basis for e-Rulemaking officials’ and the eRulemaking Initiative Executive Committee’s recommendation about 

which design alternative to implement. We also interviewed OMB, eRulemaking, and DOT officials involved with developing information about 

the design alternatives, the selection of the centralized system design, and 

the development of the estimated cost savings associated with the 

centralized design alternative. 

Our second objective was to describe how EPA collaborated with other 

rulemaking agencies to obtain input about the e-Rulemaking system and 

those agencies’ views regarding the collaboration. To address this 

objective, we interviewed e-Rulemaking officials and reviewed 

documentation related to collaboration efforts such as those describing the 

purpose and composition of various committees and work groups and 

written agreements between agencies and EPA regarding funding of the 

system. To acquire agency views on the collaboration that has occurred, 

we randomly selected 12 of the 27 agencies that serve on the e-Rulemaking 

1

DOT was the managing partner for the e-Rulemaking initiative prior to EPA. DOT 

submitted the first business case, dated September 10, 2002, to OMB. EPA submitted the 

subsequent business cases dated December 28, 2002, September 8, 2003, and September 13, 

2004.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 24 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

Initiative Advisory Board and interviewed officials from those agencies 

about their experiences with the collaboration efforts. Included in this set 

of selected agencies were (1) agencies that serve on the e-Rulemaking 

Executive Committee, (2) agencies that currently have an e-Rulemaking 

system, and (3) agencies that are heavily involved in rulemaking. We 

analyzed the agency officials’ responses to our questions on collaboration 

and identified those views that were most frequently expressed by officials 

from multiple agencies as a means of gauging the overall quality of the 

collaboration.2

In addition to the agencies included in the sample, we discussed 

collaboration with two additional agencies that serve on the Advisory 

Board. The first was DOT. Since we contacted DOT officials in relation to 

the first objective, we also discussed collaboration issues with them. We 

contacted the second agency, the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA), because many officials included in the original 

sample suggested that we talk to that agency since an official from NARA 

was heavily involved in meeting with all agencies to discuss the 

development of the e-Rulemaking system. We also discussed the methods 

used to obtain information from the public about the development of the eRulemaking system with PMO officials and reviewed related documents.

Our third objective was to (1) determine whether EPA used key practices 

for successfully managing a project when managing the e-Rulemaking 

initiative and (2) describe EPA’s future plans for developing and 

implementing the centralized e-Rulemaking system. To determine whether 

e-Rulemaking officials followed key practices, we identified key practices 

for successfully managing a project by reviewing previous GAO work 

related to the e-government initiatives. The key practices included in prior 

GAO reports were based in part on studies done by federal, state, and local 

agencies, international agencies, and the private sector and on guidance 

provided by the federal government, state, local and international 

governments, private research groups, national associations, and 

educational institutions. GAO information technology staff agreed with the 

list of key practices we identified. After developing the list of key 

practices, we compared the list to the information we had gathered about 

2

Although these randomly selected agencies are a representative set of the agencies serving 

on the Advisory Board, the qualitative analysis of descriptive responses provided by agency 

officials does not provide a sufficiently reliable or quantifiable basis for generalizing our 

observations to all agencies involved in the e-Rulemaking initiative.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 25 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

e-Rulemaking officials’ management of the e-Rulemaking initiative. When 

making the comparison, we did not assess how well each key practice was 

followed, but rather we determined if the steps they took to manage the eRulemaking initiative reflected the presence of the practice. We did not 

attempt to assess the quality or extent of each practice’s implementation. 

In order to describe future plans for the initiative, we reviewed documents 

that addressed future plans such as the business cases and implementation 

schedules and interviewed e-Rulemaking officials. We did not assess the 

quality of these plans.

Although we report cost and related data from contractor assessments of 

the three governmentwide e-Rulemaking system design alternatives, we did 

not examine the reliability of that data since our first objective was to 

describe how e-Rulemaking officials selected one of the three alternatives 

rather than to determine if the appropriate alternative was selected. We 

performed our work from December 2003 through June 2005 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 26 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

Appendix II

List of GAO Reports Related to E-Rulemaking ApendxiI

Federal Rulemaking: Agencies’ Use of Information Technology to 

Facilitate Public Participation. GAO/GGD-00-135R. Washington, D.C.: 

June 30, 2000.

Electronic Government: Government Paperwork Elimination Act 

Presents Challenges for Agencies. GAO/AIMD-00-282. Washington, D.C.: 

September 15, 2000.

Electronic Government: Better Information Needed on Agencies’ 

Implementation of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. GAO-01-

1100. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001.

Regulatory Management: Communication About Technology-Based 

Innovations Can Be Improved. GAO-01-232. Washington, D.C.: February 

12, 2001.

Information Technology: OMB Leadership Critical to Making Needed 

Enterprise Architecture and E-government Progress. GAO-02-389T. 

Washington, D.C.: March 21, 2002.

Electronic Government: Selection and Implementation of the Office of 

Management and Budget’s 24 Initiatives. GAO-03-229. Washington, D.C.: 

November 22, 2002.

Electronic Government: Success of the Office of Management and 

Budget’s 25 Initiatives Depends on Effective Management and Oversight. 

GAO-03-495T. March 13, 2003.

Electronic Rulemaking: Efforts to Facilitate Public Participation Can Be 

Improved. GAO-03-901. Washington, D.C.: September 17, 2003.

Electronic Government: Potential Exists for Enhancing Collaboration on 

Four Initiatives. GAO-04-6. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2003.

Electronic Government: Initiatives Sponsored by the Office of 

Management and Budget Have Made Mixed Progress. GAO-04-561T. 

Washington, D.C.: March 24, 2004.

Electronic Government: Federal Agencies Have Made Progress 

Implementing the E-Government Act of 2002. GAO-05-12. Washington, 

D.C.: December 10, 2004.
Appendix II

List of GAO Reports Related to E-Rulemaking

Page 27 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

Electronic Government: Funding of the Office of Management and 

Budget’s Initiatives. GAO-05-420. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2005.
Page 28 GAO-05-777 Electronic Rulemaking

Appendix III

Comments from the Environmental 

Protection Agency ApendxiI

(450264)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548